Legal Opinion
Amsdell v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided July 20, 1994No. 93-163PublishedCited by 35 opinions
1Per curiam
The decision of the BTA is unreasonable and unlawful, and it is reversed.
The BTA, citing Alcan Aluminum Corp. v. Limbach (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 121, 537 N.E.2d 1302, and Alliance Towers, Ltd. v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Revision (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 16, 523 N.E.2d 826, stated:
“The Board of Revision’s determination of value of real property is presumptively correct.”
The BTA has misinterpreted those cases. We have previously disabused the BTA regarding its conclusion that “ * * * ‘the board [of revisiones finding of value is entitled to a presumption of validity.’ ” Springfield Local Bd. of Edn. v.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Tokles & Son, Inc. v. Midwestern Indemnity Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1992
- Cardinal Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1975
- R.R.Z. Associates v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- Smith v. PadgettOhio Supreme Court · 1987
- Alliance Towers, Ltd. v. Stark County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1988
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Dayton-Montgomery County Port Authority v. Montgomery County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2007
- Colonial Village, Ltd. v. Washington County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2009
- Columbus Board of Education v. Franklin County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- Simmons v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- Worthington City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.